Michele Bachmann, GOP congresswoman and self-proclaimed gaffe-free presidential candidate, took to the subject of gay marriage in an event she attended on Wednesday. She was asked a number of questions by Jane Schmidt, a high school student at Waverly High School and president of the Gay-Straight Alliance.
When asked by Schmidt what she would do to support the LGBT community, Bachmann responded by saying that she would follow the government's role in protecting the civil rights of all Americans, saying, "There shouldn't be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people's preferences. We all have the same civil rights." Schmidt pressed on, asking why, then, could same-sex couples not marry. Bachmann said it was fine if they did, as long as they married a person of the opposite sex.
Schmidt rightly pointed out that this implied that heterosexual couples have privilege. Bachmann replied that there is no right to same-sex marriage, but this doesn't deny her point. If civil rights extend only to people of a certain sexual preference, then those rights are putting people in that category above others, essentially granting them the special privilege that Bachmann would so readily deny to homosexual couples wishing to marry.
Bachmann went on to say, "I said that there are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There's no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life." This argument destroys itself because she is ignoring the fact that couples consisting of one man and one woman are granted the right to marry while other couples are not because of their sex practices. If that weren't the case, no doubt we wouldn't see any of the arguments that gay couples are unnatural, immoral and other vile rhetoric.
Opponents of gay marriage have brought up a variety of arguments: it's immoral, it would teach kids that being gay is okay, it would lead to bestiality and molestation, gay couples can't have kids (because adoption is impossible and because the Earth has such a shortage of humans) and other things. They also say that straight marriage is "normal," attempting to interchange the definitions of "normal" and "common."
However, the idea that gay marriage isn't allowed because it would be some special privilege is another new ridiculous argument to bring to the table. Many have heard of the spooky "homosexual agenda" that sounds like some apocalyptic plot for world domination. This fear-mongering and demonizing of a natural part of life (which many will deny because science is frightening like that) belittles the efforts of normal people simply wishing to live a normal life. Wishing for marriage equality isn't asking for special rights. It's asking for the same rights. That homosexuals are still fighting for the rights to marry the one they love in this day and age is a scary example of how slow human progression can really be.
However, Bachmann's idea of the law of the land is fading. Six states already grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and more will undoubtedly follow the same process.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 62
It was... FABULOUS!!!
Bingo!
The whole idea of the left supposedly is that everyone should be able to do what they want, arrange flowers, wear pink ties, be gay, whatever, so when they berate someone on the right for being gay does that just whiz over people's heads?
We make fun of anti-gay right wingers who are obviously gay themselves. It's not because they're gay, it's because they're fighting against their own interests.
"Of course gays have the same rights as everyone else. A gay man has the right to marry a woman just like every other man."
Michelle Bachmann is just a ridiculous person.
And "Mr. Sharboneaux," you aren't smart enough to BE a member of the electorate.
Now based on her professing her Christian faith, I would like to know how she can say gays can marry, but not in a same sex relationship. Because if that is the case I want to know if she is saying its ok for these people to commit adultery because that's most likely what would happen.
A person has the right to chose what lifestyle they want to live, I may not agree with them, just as they don't agree with me, but it's their life, I can't tell them how to live it........
So I guess Michelle Bachman is saying that a gay is supposed to marry another gay of the opposite sex, and then they commit adultery on their 'spouse'? Is that what she is saying?
Thats the way I took it.
>> supposed to marry another gay of the opposite sex,
>> and then they commit adultery on their 'spouse'?
>> Is that what she is saying?
Ha ... just say that flying by on the Gather front page and thought it was pretty funny. It's a lot more creative that what other Republicans want to do ... maybe Bachman should get a little credit. ;-)
Dang it I can't even keep track of this stuff any more........
You're welcome.
I think Marcus Bachmann should get together with Rick Santorum and make beautiful man love.
...and, her name is Michele.
I think its just the fact that gays are liberals and that what liberals do...complain about everything.
OWS losers have been complaining for weeks now about how the evil rich will not give them money that they did not work for.
The gays complaing about marrige rights.
I suggest you turn off Faux News and ask the protesters themselves what they're protesting.
Being denied the rights that everyone else enjoys without question is a legitimate complaint.
Lori, that's the only thing of substance you've said in this whole thread.
Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate?
Absolutely.
Come on!
I just watched the documentary, The Bible Tells Me So, which every so-called Christian needs to watch over and over and over again. If the religious right really took the Bible literally, they would "give away ALL their wealth to the poor" as the Bible instructs, and they would know that it is a sin to get a haircut. Has Michele Bachmann ever had a haircut?
Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
I know there are studies, and people who say being gay is not a choice, I am not on or off that bandwagon, but for a lack of better term, I chose that term in reference to the way they live, not saying it was choice or not.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Earth to the media gay propagandists: for 5000 years, "marriage" has meant "a contract between one man and one woman", not some other random combination of humans because it feels good. That definition of marriage is the bedrock of human society.
Marriage has lots of definitions, and that is one. But it has hardly been the bedrock of human society: according to the culture a person is a member of, there have been many definitions of marriage.
Bachmann's transparent bigotry is much like yours: ill-thought, reactionary, and ultimately stupid.
The vast majority of marriages throughout history where NOT the modern American conservative fairytale of Mr. & Mrs. "Mom and Pop" who got happily married then had little Sally and Junior.
The vast majority of marriages where not because people loved each other; they were familial arrangements, tribal contracts, or power plays (Like when a princess was married off to a duke).
For most of history women had no choice who they married (a lot still dont). The bible is full of stories of men with multiple wives (some with hundreds).
Is that what you mean by bedrock.....?
What have YOU geniuses got?
No, she comes across as someone who's PRINCIPLED...something that might be foreign to you. I prefer it.
When she speaks, she's Human; again, something you don't seem to accept. I'd be very careful about those straw-men, Mr. Sharboneaux...I know a certain dunce who happens to sit in the Oval Office who "believes" there are 57 States...and cannot pronounce the word "Corpsman"...
...I could go on.